Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:04 pm  

I'm pretty sure Sutcliffe didn't state that they were making a bid for the lease under the same conditions of ABC.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:05 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

The RFL statement does say that they are reviewing a second bid, it's worded like it's from another bidder. Lat sentence, nearly missed it.

Thays why I asked about what sutcliffe said, although I didn't think he was submitting his bid til tomorrow. If it has dame conditions surely they won't even consider it?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:06 pm  

mat wrote:

Didn't sutcliffe state in article this morning that his bid would have same conditions re lease and license attached?

Let's be careful none of us fully know what the conditions are, there's nothing wrong with saying I want the lease back at what you paid plus maybe a little extra as interest and that a a result you'd expect the RFL to honour the license that was given to the bulls.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:08 pm  

ROFL website wrote:

The offer was submitted in writing on Tuesday but after careful consideration the RFL Board of Directors has deemed its conditional nature to be unreasonable and unrealistic.

So what do we learn from this, boys and girls?

We learn that the RFL WOULD INDEED accept an offer with conditions. This offer had conditions. The RFL did not send it back with a curt note saying "We do not accept any conditional offers".

No, they "carefully considered" it. And rejected it NOT because it was a conditional offer, but because its conditional nature was unreasonable and unrealistic.

And so IF its conditional nature HAD been (in the RFL's opinion) reasonable and realistic, then they'd have accepted it. And that means if a revised offer is made with reasonable and realistic conditions, it could indeed still be accepted.

QED.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:09 pm  

I really don't see ANY consortium being willing to pour £3million into the club without having the lease for Odsal. Otherwise how could they ever generate any money to create a stable and viable business going forward?

But then I'm sure we all figured this out ages ago - quite why the RFL haven't worked this out yet, and are prepared to end up with a big hole in the ground as their 'iconic' investment - is still to be revealed.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:24 pm  

It appears the RFL purchased Odsal so they could dance on our grave.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:45 pm  

debaser wrote:

Great.
I wonder sometimes if the RFL would rather see us liquidated?

But you don't know what the conditions of the "conditional bid" were.

The RFL paid £1,250,000 for the Odsal lease. How much did the consortium offer to buy it back?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:50 pm  

childofthenorthern wrote:

It appears the RFL purchased Odsal so they could dance on our grave.

Oh give over..

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:55 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

I really don't see ANY consortium being willing to pour £3million into the club without having the lease for Odsal. Otherwise how could they ever generate any money to create a stable and viable business going forward?

But then I'm sure we all figured this out ages ago - quite why the RFL haven't worked this out yet, and are prepared to end up with a big hole in the ground as their 'iconic' investment - is still to be revealed.

It depends on how much they offered for the lease. They may have offered £200k, we don't know.

The RFL have already been screwed over on the lease once by the (previous) Bradford Bulls. For all the talk of "iconic" investment I doubt the RFL actively *wanted* the lease, but they took it effectively as collateral on a loan that they weren't otherwise going to get anything back for. As it was also in their interests that Bradford survived, they added £500k onto the purchase price in the hope that that would solve problems too.

It's very likely that the Odsal lease was overvalued as a way of helping Bradford survive, but that money went where all the other money went, and you'd understand the RFL not wanting to take *another* bath by underselling their investment to what in their view may be a consortium of sharks coming in to make profit on their previous charity.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:58 pm  

childofthenorthern wrote:

It appears the RFL purchased Odsal so they could dance on our grave.

I thought they bought it as you couldn't repay a loan that they gave you.

To be honest no one really knows (except the main players) what the conditions were. I don't think it is unreasonable for the RFL to expect to get their money back.

Until someone comes up with what the offer was it is impossible to blame the RFL for not accepting the terms.

I think the SL licence is a strange one. I personally think it is perfectly reasonable for ABC to ask this. If Bradford were to lose the licence it would surley effect their business plan moving forward